BREAKING: Canadian Cop Killer Is a Gun Rights Advocate

“In a country often stereotyped for being too genteel, the Canadian city of Moncton prides itself on a special distinction: It was named the most polite,” cnn.com opines. “So what happened here Wednesday seems unimaginable to residents. A man dressed in fatigues and carrying a rifle went on a rampage, killing three police officers and wounding two others. Thursday morning, the shooter was still on the loose.” As of this writing, there’s not a lot of background on the shooter: one Justin Bourque. But we know one thing: he was pro-gun. And anti-police militarization. And anti-Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. The image above is from his Facebook page. As are the ones after the jump [which have been deleted] . . .

Exactly. The vast majority of mass murderers seem to be left wing progressive socialists. This guy was an anomaly. Of course, I’m afraid for our Northern neighbors, because governments don’t ever let a good tragedy go to waste.

Part of the emerging picture of the suspect is all too familiar to recent stories of mass shootings. He appeared to be a man whose mind was full of resentment and conspiracy theories. He didn’t like authority and made some people uneasy with his enthusiasm for firearms.

Right, so despite all the evidence to the contrary, suddenly it’s anti-authoritarian conspiracy theorists and firearms enthusiasts who are the stereotypical mass shooter? Damn lies.

an anomaly: not really…
refers to self as 99%, pens really strange poetry and likes Anonymous:

“attacks on government, religious, and corporate websites.”
“targeting the Church of Scientology”
“in retaliation against anti–digital piracy campaigns by motion picture and recording industry trade associations.”
“hacktivism included government agencies of the US, Israel, Tunisia, Uganda, and others;”
“copyright protection agencies; the Westboro Baptist Church; and corporations such as PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, and Sony.”
“Anons have publicly supported WikiLeaks and the Occupy movement. Related groups LulzSec and Operation AntiSec carried out cyberattacks on US government agencies, media, video game companies, military contractors, military personnel, and police officers, resulting in the attention of law enforcement to the groups’ activities. Anonymous has been criticized as racist and antireligious.[dubious – discuss][6] It has also been criticized for the timing of its “#OpIsrael” cyber-attacks of Israeli websites on Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day) in 2013.[7]”
“Dozens of people have been arrested for involvement in Anonymous cyberattacks, in countries including the US, UK, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey. Evaluations of the group’s actions and effectiveness vary widely. Supporters have called the group “freedom fighters”[8] and digital Robin Hoods[9] while critics have described them as “a cyber lynch-mob”[10] or “cyber terrorists”.[11] In 2012, Time called Anonymous one of the “100 most influential people” in the world.[12]”

Especially this one, because the leftist authoritarians will see this as more than an opportunity for political gain. It’s not like some kids were gunned down, or other innocent people. That would make the grabbers salivate, but they wouldn’t really care. No, this guy took on some of the people the leftist authoritarians regard as their pet attack dogs. Successfully. That will put real fear into their little black hearts. It’s what they have really been scared of all along. They’ll be rabid.

Note: Not condoning the shooter’s actions. I’m sure those cops were just decent, hard-working folks doing a difficult and important job, and certainly did nothing to deserve what happened to them. I’m laying it out like I think the leftist authoritarians would see it.

Robert – I’m not telling you how to run your site, but these are the comments that should not only be moderated, but reported. Everything this nutball is saying reeks of the words of every pathetic mass killer we’ve ever been punished for. It’s not my fault I killed a bunch of school children – society was making me conform. No, the cool kids made me do it. Girls won’t bang me. Police made me to it. Pathetic.

Uh, it’s not. You can write anything you want under the “name” section, and some brilliant mastermind simple put “BlinkyPete” in. I’m not back pedaling on anything I said. Someone is simply commenting under my name.

And for the record, yeah, when someone not only openly sympathizes with a mass murderer but goes as far as to glamorize them, if it were my site I’d damned well report them. There are plenty upon plenty of examples of violent monsters preceding their attacks with vague warnings and threats, and the sites those threats are made on are invariably cast in the most negative light.

Except that not only is he not sympathizing with a spree-killer, but you are espousing the talking-points of the civilian disarmament industrial complex which constitutes a bigger threat to everyone (including you) than any spree-killer ever could.

No, I’m not. I’m not sure if you’re talking about something I actually said or if you’re talking about the other fellow commenting as me, but if it’s the former I’d like to know exactly what I’ve said that supports the gun-control movement. To the exact contrary, my biggest concern is that mass killers and people who glamorize them (and saying “Maybe…he is looking to check out in style” is most certainly that) do more for the gun control movement than they could ever do for themselves.

And you know what – you make an excellent point that I failed to make. You’re right – it won’t do anything, not in the short term anyway. What it would do in the long term, though, if give TTAG a paper trail to say “See, we do our best to notify people when we see potentially threatening or dangerous behavior.” I probably should have spelled that out more clearly.

I especially liked this part:Reported to the authorities so the responsible parties can be arrested, questioned, and have their weapons temporarily placed into impound until its determined they’re not a threat to their community.

More and more folks like you strike me as borrowing plays from the book of the anti’s. You don’t seem to have an argument beyond projecting beliefs and desires onto anyone who doesn’t fall lock step inline with not only your own beliefs, but your approach to enforcing them.

Otherwise MDA would be all over this. I can hear it already: ‘This could just as easily happen here. Gun owners cannot be trusted. They must be disarmed – otherwise children will be caught in the crossfire.’

We (the US) are the largest arms supplier in the world. Oh, but wait, that’s not why we are in Africa. Next stop, Antartica. . . . .the penguins need our military hardware!

But we won’t respect the citizens right to bear arms in any country. ONLY governments can be armed, like the “freedom fighters” in Libya and Syria, no doubt they all had background checks and were vetted by the CIA and FBI. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHOE WE ARE HANDING ARMS TO.

We have a long history of selling wepons to people who turn around and try to kill us 20 years later. Afghanistan and Iraq are two noteworthy examples. The US operates on “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. This is flawed logic. My enemy’s enemy is just my enemy’s enemy.

They probably came to get his guns and he went with the Charleston Heston approach.

One bad apple does not make or mean the remaining apples on the tree are bad – but if the controlling powers at be spray the tree with herbicide – all the apples will go bad. Now which is it? Is Justin a bad apple or is he being sprayed with political tyrannical herbicide?

The language you’re using sounds an awful lot like the manifest of basically every mass killer over the past twenty years. There’s always some justification or reason for violent behavior that shifts the blame from the perpetrator to his victims. It seems this line of thinking is pretty common among conspiracy theorist types.

Step back for a moment and consider this from a perspective of what is inherently right or wrong … rather than what is “lawful”. If John Doe has never harmed anyone and has no malicious intent, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why John Doe cannot own and possess a firearm, be it a handgun or a long gun. Caliber, ammunition capacity, rate of fire, ergonomic features, cosmetic features, etc. are all irrelevant. And yet governments, through legislative fiat, actively tell John Doe that it is “illegal” to possess some/all firearms … and said government has instructed law enforcement officers to use any force necessary — up to an including deadly force — to disarm John Doe. Who is in the wrong? John Doe for possessing “illegal” firearms? Or government for improperly signing John Doe’s death warrant for owning “illegal” firearms?

Firstly, you (along with plenty of other folks) are making assumptions about this guys motives and what initiated the shooting. The fact that he’s walking around somewhere and not defending his home makes your scenario entirely unlikely. Secondly, and once again, he is still to blame. Killing a bunch of cops does exactly nothing to solve any of the issues you outlined above, and this situation will likely erode many of the advances RTKABA advocates in Canada have made over the past 10 years.

My problem with conspiracy theorists is that they tend to be people of sub-average intelligence who lack critical thinking skills, reason and often strike me as mentally unbalanced. By their very nature they’re prone to group think and suggestibility, but often lash out at anyone who points out their obvious fallacies and inaccuracies by calling them “sheeple.”

Now, I know this is probably a flex period for you, but if you keep insulting me I’m going to email your Junior High and tell them what you’re using their computers for.

Funny how someone who is all “that’s not how to fight for our 2A rights” calls for reporting and banning people. Because you know…rights aren’t for individuals they are for groups…and only groups that think like Blinky. That is to say, operate at an IQ of about 70.

And last time I checked, there are tons of opinions on this site. At least I have the mental capacity to express coherent thoughts and ideas that aren’t “You no think like me. You hate second amendment. Roar!”

:My problem with conspiracy theorists is that they tend to be people of sub-average intelligence who lack critical thinking skills, reason and often strike me as mentally unbalanced. By their very nature they’re prone to group think and suggestibility, but often lash out at anyone who points out their obvious fallacies and inaccuracies by calling them “sheeple.””

Then there is the “debunker”. The room temperature dimwits such as yourself that seek to debunk everything, despite the evidence that challenges conventional wisdom and your rabid propensity to shut down any debate whatsoever. Not to mention you throw journalists and those that challenge conventional wisdom into the same bin as David Icke, 9/11 air plane hologramers, and sandy hook “truthers”. After all, its just easier right? no requirement of any thinking whatsoever.

Sorry, but Cibil Edmonds, Amber Lyon, Snowden, and other whistleblowers and investigators are much more intelligent than you and the other “debunkers” (you make debunkers throw up). Its because of people like you, that those who orchestrate criminal acts of incompetence and negligence are still free, unpunished. People with your “mentality” ensure the rotten game continues. As I said before, a pox on you.

“Now, I know this is probably a flex period for you, but if you keep insulting me I’m going to email your Junior High and tell them what you’re using their computers for.”

Im going to keep it up unabated. Your computer is good company. Your wife is even better company.

“Room Temperature IQ” really didn’t merit a repeat. I do love how you call me stupid in grammar a 2nd grader would be ashamed of while missing the point that the “report and ban” comment had nothing to do with you – he was referencing a post above. Reading comprehension is your friend!

I’m also sorry that you took the whole Junior High thing as an insult – it wasn’t. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was thinking that whomever is writing this poorly worded and punctuated word-salad is either a mentally ill adult with a learning disability and emotional issues or a slowish 7th grader. I was hoping, and assumed it was the latter – the whole ‘a pox on you’ thing lead me to believe you’d recently been introduced to Shakespeare, and that things would really pick up for you when you hit puberty. It’s a damn shame to hear that ship’s already sailed for you, and that you fit more into the former category. Oh, and that you’ve apparently only been introduced to Shakespeare, and that it’s cool enough to repeatedly use the whole “pox” thing.

So why were the police going after this guy to begin with? Or did he walk down the street with his guns? Police usually begin the encounter…why did they do it? What was their reasoning? I’m not jumping to any conclusions until the facts are out there…

Pictures circulated of the bad guy armed walking through the streets and neighborhoods hunting LEO’s.

Pictures…..of him walking…..which means the unarmed populace didn’t have the means to take down a bad guy. the populace has been told “guns=bad” so the majority don’t have them. Video’s surfacing of the bad guy shooting a officer near a patrol car. The residents take up cameras instead of arms when faced with a life or death situation.

As the anti-gun crowd spins this we need to spin this. We are witnessing what happens in a unarmed society. I don’t know the ownership statistics for that town but if a bad guy can walk the streets with no worry then it can’t be high.

I agree. It might seem crass to say “if you had a gun in your hand instead of a cellphone you could have stopped this,” but we must consider what we will be told; “If you closed the ‘gun show loophole’ in America this meme-crazed killer wouldn’t be shooting mounties in Canada.”

Good point. If a person was casually walking down my street whilst executing passersby, he wouldn’t get more than 50 yards past the first victim I saw him execute before falling over dead from a rifle wound.

At that point all we would need the police to do is clean up the mess.

There are probably plenty of armed Canuck hunters in the neighborhood, but all are apparently unwilling to assist. So thoroughly brainwashed, I doubt the idea of shooting at a dangerous person even crosses their mind.

I’m assuming absolutely nothing. I never said that a cop can’t act criminally. What I do know, is that this guy shot and killed three police officers, wounded two more, and is now the subject of a manhunt. I know from pictures that he was tooled up with at least two long guns.

If you read this and your reaction is “this is a good guy” then you’re going well beyond making assumptions. You’re inventing and applying attributes to this guy that don’t exist, and assuming that only cops can do wrong.

To be clear, I’m not a huge fan of cops, but when someone shoots five of them, they’d need to be busting down is door in a no knock raid. That ain’t the case here.

Blinky, I don’t disagree with your reply. I guess my point is that the term “cop killer” carries the connotation that the cops were murdered, without any regard for how the cops were acting. I’m just always suspect when that term gets thrown around, as if anyone who kills a cop automatically becomes a pariah.

I don’t disagree with you there; I just thing the preponderance of evidence in this case points to a typical “go out in a blaze of murder” mass murderer. These cases generally lead to the biggest tests of the 2nd amendment (even when they don’t happen in the US or, sometimes, involve guns). It’s important to ‘stay on message’ during these times, and repudiate violent/extremist rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

I’m not sure what your point is, or if you even have one. If this guy’s mantra is “come and take it” or “from my cold dead hands”, I’m sure the police are going to oblige him either way. The fact that the putrid chicken hawks on the gun control side will exploit this tragedy is unavoidable, but the fact that there are people on my side who see this as some kind of success for gun rights is just plain sad.

Generally the people who seem to love saying that shit are talking to anyone who will listen because they want attention. If a day ever comes where we’re told to turn in our guns, then the saying might be appropriate, but when our biggest enemies are soccer moms and scummy politicians? It’s a chest thumping taunt, a vague threat. Constantly throwing those sayings around doesn’t help us. The reason the gun community has such shitty stereotypes is because mouth breathers have to simplify our culture into bumper stickers and t-shirts and angry phrases.

You sure do assume a hell of a lot
Read the comment you are supposedly commenting on again….”I don’t know guys. Thus far I like him – but that could change as more of the story surfaces (hopefully facts). There are a lot of unanswered questions here.”
Maybe you just automatically stopped reading once you got to a certain point?

So how long until we tell people to stop posting political cartoons against gun control, because people who are on the fence are going to think you’re just like the Canadian shitbag “gun-nut” and that will scare people into voting for more gun control?

Better to reserve judgement until more facts are known. Is this a spree killer lashing out at the government? Or a response to government aggression? Something else entirely? None of that is clear at this point. He may be someone’s poster child, but who that someone is isn’t entirely clear at this point.

I like this hierarchy of life value the media has. Gangsters are the lowest since they hardly ever get mentioned. White people are always worth more as Rodgers showed. 3 shot makes world news for a month. Children are worth something but here again white children are worth more than non-white children. But cops, the world always stops for cops. Any color and you’re golden if you’re a cop.

I’ll see if I can work out a nice chart just so we all know exactly how valuable we are.

I was afraid of this. When are the “domestic” here going to get it through their thick heads that some people take “foreign or domestic” and their oaths seriously? Government agents try to make your handlers understand that the solution to the vile crimes of a very few isn’t to attack the civil rights of everyone else. Even if the intention isn’t to push people over the edge if that’s the final result does it really matter what the original intention was? You tell me (I’m sure by now you know everything about me) do you see a happy ending coming from all these attacks on the Bill of Rights? You people can do something about this. Me I think I’m going to a commune in Vermont till this crap blows over.

That’s just my favorite line from Birth of a New Machine. A digital hardware engineer trying to debug a high speed digital circuit quit in frustration saying something like “I’ve gone to a commune in Vermont. I refuse to deal with any length of time shorter than a season” Doing that just sometimes seems like a good idea.

First comment on the BG most recent post. In my opinion this quote means that the BG had talked at great length with people about his ideas or plans.

The warning signs were there, nothing was done, no one was contacted, no one asked him if he was ok. No LEO, no family members confronted his ideas and tried to intervene. Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe people were contacted but couldn’t do anything or didn’t know what to do or say.

How the hell do you know what motivated him to do it? What a foolish, pathetic thing to say. If you genuinely think that civil war is in the cards, and that it would somehow help our cause, strap that tinfoil hat on and post up in your bunker and just wait for it to start. The adults are busy actually trying to fight for the 2nd amendment.

I don’t know what facts you’re waiting for… what is there left to know?

Gun control advocates start exploiting tragedies the second they are reported on, and being wrong doesn’t stop them – see the three largely ignored stabbing victims in the latest Kalifornia mass murder. The only reason I can think of to claim that ‘we don’t know all the facts’ is to suspend disbelief for conspiracy theorists, who are the absolute worst among us.

Yawwwwwnn. I’m massively critical of the mainstream media, but that doesn’t meant the so-called alternative media is any better. Critical thinking, reading comprehension and the ability to analyze multiple sources for data are good skills for folks who genuinely want to be informed. Single source news readers, be the fans of CNN, Fox News or Prison Planet, generally strike me as people who simply want their views, biases and opinions reinforced and supported. That goes doubly for conspiracy theorists.

And also, oh humble trollio, your comment kind of exposes the logical fallacy in the whole ‘everything’s a conspiracy’ argument. We know about the NSA because of whistle blowers. We know about Pat Tillman because of whistle blowers. We know about Enron, Lance Armstrong, GM and every other actual conspiracy because of whistle blowers.

The ‘False Flag’ theorem for 9/11, Sandy Hook and everything else would require hundreds, if not thousands of active participants. How many whistle blowers do we have? Zero.

It goes to the No True Scotsman Fallacy: “If he’s one of us, he can’t be guilty, and if he’s guilty he can’t be one of us.” Frankly, I don’t care what his political leanings are. Every time there’s a terrorist attack the left reminds us it’s wrong to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, while the right condemns the entire faith as a religion of violence. That sounds awful familiar to me.

We have no clue what precipitated this. More than likely, this guy’s an delusional anti-cop nutter taking revenge for some imagined slight, or, he thinks it’s long past time for a revolution for past acts perpetrated by a tyrannical government militarizing its police force and disarming its citizens. For all we know, this could be a legitimate case of self defense and the news media is being given a snow job by the police. We just don’t know. None of us have all the information yet, and probably never will.

Let’s try and see this somewhat rationally. First of all, I think many of us can agree that we have mental health problem in this country (and it would seem in Canada too). Most of lunatics who have gone on the rampage here have shown clear signs of mental illness that, if it had been taken more seriously could have possibly changed what happened.

If we agree that some X percent of the population is mentally troubled, statistical theory suggests that some percentage of gun owners are going to have some level of mental health problems. Statistical theory further holds that some percentage of that group will snap and go on a rampage. Disarming people is not the solution as that group that snaps will simply use another tool if firearms are restricted. Rather, we need to focus on the mental health problems, not the guns.

Secondly, I find it interesting that this fellow only targeted police. When this sort of thing happens here it almost invariably results in the deaths of uninvolved people. Note that I use the word uninvolved rather than innocent as I don’t mean to suggest the police officers who were killed and wounded in Canada were not innocent. Instead, I am trying to draw the distinction between what would be considered uninvolved people and police who could reasonably be seen as agents of the oppressive state in the mind of this killer. It’s not that far a stretch really. Anti-police comments that regularly populate TTAG along with the ones posted on this very article suggest that mindset is not uncommon.

This incident has many parallels to what happened in Arizona a month or so ago in which armed citizens, fed up at what they perceived to be constant Government overreach, leveled guns at Federal officials and were prepared to get into a shooting war despite the fact that most of them really didn’t have any connection to the specific issue at hand on the Bundy Ranch. They simply were looking to push back at the Government and Bundy gave them the opportunity.

What will be interesting over the next days and weeks will be how this story is parsed by the press. It could certainly be spun as yet another example of a crackpot with access to too much firepower going off and killing innocents for no reason. Or it could be seen as a much more dangerous precedent – that of the citizen who is fed up with their Government and has decided not to take it anymore.

The American Revolution began with British troops shooting Colonial resistors in Lexington. That relatively small event ultimately wound up with the most powerful armed force in the world being driven from their colonial holdings by a relatively rag tag bunch of partisans who had decided not to take it anymore. I’m not saying that the panic button needs to be pressed just yet, but if this incident becomes just one in a string of similar incidents to come, the powder keg might well and truly be lit.

“…that of the citizen who is fed up with their Government and has decided not to take it anymore.”

That’s how the authoritarians will see it, and be trouser-soiling scared at the clear demonstration that an armed citizen with the will to do so can overcome armed police. As far as I can tell, this guy probably was just gunning down random cops who did nothing wrong. The shooter sure looks like a bad guy to me. But that’s not the calculation Big Sister is making right now.

Remember Alinsky’s first rule: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Authoritarians love to tell us that popular resistance to tyranny is just a fantasy. Justin Bourque and Chris Dorner have called their bluff for all the world to see. The fact that most of us would agree that these two are bad guys doesn’t matter.

I’m against police militarization, because I’m against the needless escalation of violence. That means I’m also against the needless escalation of violence against police.

I take alarm at the shooting or brutalization of innocent people by police, because I’m against the shooting and brutalization of innocent people. That means I’m also against the shooting or brutalization of police officers.

I speak out when the rights of ordinary people are violated, and when police are not held accountable, because I stand for an even and equitable application of the law. That means I’m against the violation of officers’ rights as individuals and demand those who violate them be brought to justice. That also means I believe that when police officers break the law they ought to enjoy the same rights to due process as the rest of us, and not be smeared with trumped-up accusations.

In short, this guy has nothing in common with my views except a superficial connection to the criticism of police.

From everything I’m reading, it sounds like this guy was not specifically targeted or provoked by the RCMP. Instead, it sounds like he ended up going off the deep end with conspiracy theories and paranoia. If he really did just decide one day to go out and shoot at law enforcement personnel, that’s pretty reprehensible.

I guess he got tired of being repressed by a government he never consented to stealing his money and his freedom and he decided to seek revenge by killing some of the people who enable the state to do it’s evil.
I do not think what he did was right from a tactical point of view, as it is not likely to bring about change, but from a moral point of view as long as ONLY employees of the state where killed I do t know that I can fault him. The policemen where prolly nice men with families who felt like they where good guys, but in truth they do enable the state to do bad things.
They will call this guy crazy or whatever. I think that is wrong how ever you feel about his actions it is obvious they are an act of political violence against the state. An act of revolution against the government.
Although I personally pray for a day when having a state that enforces it’s laws and taxes with the threat of violence will be a capital crime, I want to see government employees put on trial before they are shot. Also political violence against an evil oppressor is not very effective without a populace ready for change. Right now our population is addicted to themselves mentality and sucking te glass d@@k of the state. Until that addiction is broken and enough people realize government is not needed at all it is just a justification for some people to rule others, a big lie, killing a few of the states henchmen seams a little cruel.

That first picture is pretty stupid. You can’t compare traffic cops to riot police, who exist for a very good reason (and use nonlethal weapons for the most part) and expect that to show how police are becoming militarized.

I know that the militarization of police is a very real thing — but try to bring that point across a different way.

Also, all of those pictures… When did TTAG become my FB news feed? I come here to escapee that BS.

That top picture killed me , the British police are still the top image , the bottom ones are the super special “armed police” they only show up if someone is shooting an air rifle at cans on his own property or testing his BRIGHT PINK airsoft AR (cough me cough bought it as a joke cough) in the privacy of his own room until spotted by paranoid neighbours.